Ahmed and others (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

{-= ( r-t-t'.:r\- "'A *l\o rtv<A- r 6/ut7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAI]}

Elefore Mr. Justicc Mohamrnad iiarirtr [(hirrl Agl ra

Cr. Jarl Appeal No. S- I 04 ol 2,t)t)t1 Y Ahmccl l{han arrd otlters

Verstr s

The Sl-atc

Appcllants Ahmed I(har-r Through Syecl Trrr.iqrlc Ahrtecl Shah, and others Advocate

Respondcnt : The State Through Mr. Shahicl Alrrrrerl f-lha,ilrh,

A.P.G.

Comlrlainant : Ismail 'lhrough Mr Nai.ee r ,,\lrrrrcrl l-llralf i, Advocate

Date of hearing 24.O4.2O17 and 25.()4.2() I'i

Date of .ludgrrrer-rt 26.O4.201',7

l

}l JUDGMDN'I' MOHAMMAD KARIM KIIAN AGH/\ J.- A plrella s Al ttt tccl ir r, r Lt r l

others were tricd by learncd IInd Addilronal Sessrou:.,h-11196, Radltr. trr Sessions Case No. 12O of 1995, arising ollt t)f (-'rttttc No.62 of I995, registered aL Policc Station Matli, rttrclct- sc(-l,Iot r i]o'.|, :\4 PPr'. Accused/appcllartts lvcrc fould guilty l-ry jrtclgtrrerrl rl"lr-rl ')'/ -oi-t-2\)()4 (the irnpUgned jUclgrncr-rt) ald v,'cre Convlctet-l rrrr,-lcr,ccllrn 3(),)(l') read with scction 34 PPC and scntetlcctl lo :r tf lcr rrgor-()rrs irnprisonment for lrfe and to pay ftue of R:J i;O,Oo()/ ca''lr as ;ttool' irl eithcr of the fc-rrms specified under sectrorr 304 FPC urR'r 11sI availal,rle If thc finc depositccl, half oI Lhc amottrrt lrc p1rr1 ltr llro l"gal lrctr:' t'f deceased Waroo alias Irorho alcl AllaI J_Jtrrtr Iilrar;l:lre]r [l ('as. r,l' default in paygreqt of [r1e tlte accusccl / apy,rcllartlrr r,tir-tr- ,,t'tlcr6rl l1' urrdergo R.I. tor six tnonl-hs tnore. The ltet-rcllL ol secl 11111 l\t'i)-[" (lr F'.(-' was also extendcd to thc acr:usecl / appetlants

2.Bricfty, the facts of ihc proscctttiotr r-'ase as Pcr- Iill-l ar-e thal rrrr 13.O7.1995 at OO3O hor-rrs complaina,rt Isnra-il 31;1r 6[ N'lcvo Iilraskhelj

-l (,

came to Police Station Matli and lodged report. statirrg t.hereirr lhat lrr.. is zamindar and residing on the addrcss rnent-ioued irr l-tre Ir.l.ll. Hc. his brothers deceased Waroo alias Porho and Alla Lr I )ir r, r r,rrcrc re:ii,. l in s in the same hedge wall alongwith their families. Acl.jacent to tlreir. houses, there were houses o[ Essar Meghwar on a plot owrrerl hy complainant. The said plot was vacated by occr-rl.rants Meghrvars orr 12.O7.1995 on which there was a dispule lte lweeu ttrc c:ornprlairra.rrl a party and accused. When the said plot rvas vacater[, Ilre t;omplair ri: r.rl alongwith his brothers deceased Waroo alias Por lrr,r, Allalrtti.rrt,, lrii i,r,, Jan Muhammad was leveling the plot. [t was aborrt l[.4.Ii prrr, tlrc complainant party saw on the light of moon accused Alrrnecl arrtrerl with lathi, Gulzar armed with lathi and accused Rasool Bukhslr arnrecl with gun in the plot. The accused abr-rsed corrrplairrant pa.rly zr.rrcl asked the complainant party as to why they lracl corne irr {he lrlot ar; ir belonged to them, on which complainar.r L parly relirserl fo vnr.:6.1s [116 plot. Resultantly, accused Ahmecl ca.Llsed lal-hi blorv trrr th. lrr:;r,J rrt' deceased waroo who tell down. Accused (,itrlzar carrsecj halcl-ret blr.v, on the head of Allahdino, who also fell down. 'l'l-reteafier r:ornpla.inarrl and his son Jan Muharnmad scuffled '"villr accuserl llasool Llr-rkhsh. Accused Ahmed took the licensed gun o[ cornplainalr( .vl ri,:lr lvas l],int: there otr a cot and then accused Rasool Bulthsh tnacle li.re ftorlr lrir owll gun at Alla-hclino but the complainarll pa.r.t,v raiiecl r ries orr urhir:lr neighbors came running and the accr-rsed persr)lts larr away. 'l'lrr- complainant party saw that Waroo alias Porho was dearl arrd Allahclirro was unconscious. The complainant left his son over. dearl body nrrtl injured and came to Police Station ar-rcl lodgecl (he report o[ rlre incident.

3.After usual investigation the accused were challorrecl enrl tlr,.. case was sent up for trial. Charge lvas frarnecl agaitrsl ac,,r-rserl / appellants, to which they pled not guilty arld claimecl lbr tr-ial.

4.In order to substantiate its case the prosecution eramined | ',t, prosecLltion witnesses (PW's) and ttlereafter procecrrtiorr ckrsed rl: j. side.

5.'l'hcreafter, statement of accused / appellants utrclct'sectrrlr il,l ,-,) Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they cienied the proser:ution case claiming their innocence. They did not give evidence urnder oatlr brrl they examined three defence witnesses (DWs) in their defencc. tr v*,

f 5 (-,

6.The learnecl trial court after hearing tlre learrrerJ r.:orrnsel [r,r1.

parties and on the assessment of the er-rtire evide'rce t:.'rvirrtetr nrrr.l sentenced the accusecl / appellants el a-t stalte(l al'r6yc t.ly611p,,lr llrr impugned judgrnent.

7 ' The facts of this case as well as evidence procrucecr b.y bo.h trrc parties before the trial Court find an elabor.ate rnerrtiorr irr llre judgrnent passed by the triar court therefore ltre sarne rnay not bc reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and rlrrner:essary !.c[]ef ition

8' During pende,cy of the instant appeal, appeilarrt Ahr,ecr rflr;rr-r died o.31.05.2005 whilst he was on bail a.d the appear agai.s( hirrr was abated vide order dated r6.04.2ors. sucrr creath cer.tifica.re issr-re.J by NADRA on 07.O4.2O15 is available on recorcl.

9.'Ihe other appellant.s Gulzar ancl Rasool Flrrkhslr uret-e gt':tt'rtcll bail by this court under S.426 Cr.trC orr 2U-()I;,ii(X).) ru I lrr- J.rct rtlir decision on their appeals

10' Learned counsel for the appeilants r:o.tencrecr l.hat r,r re appellants were innocent and that this was a false casc whictr hacl been foisted upon them; that the cornplainan l_ par-(1r clelibela.t.cly rrrarlc no attempt to save the rife of Allah Di,o who was rrre sr.ar. wit.rress arrrl would have been able to give a truthfur ac{'oll,l r- ot' evcrrrs; rrrar rlrr:

case of the prosecution was improved after filirrg trre IrrR as Ailah [hrr who later became a pW was not included ilr the FII?; that thc er.c witnesses lacked credibility; that there was major cr:nt.racljctiorrs in the evidetrce of the PW's; that the ocula. evide,ce .f tlre eye rvitnesser; rJi,.l not accord with the medicar evide,ce; that ir.r a separ.al.e r;ase r.r/s r=

(E)of the Arms Ordinance the prosecution har_l not been ;rlrle to 1,rr.11ys that the firearms were recovered on thr,- poirrtaf,rr-rrr ol.ttrr ;.rlr|,rc[a,rrt_s; that there was a 5 mo.th delay i. se.cli,g thc lathi an<1 hettchet lbr chemical examination which was not cxplaincd a,cl lbr a[ ilre ab're reasons the impugned judgment should bc se I, ersirle a.trcl r_he appellants should be acquitted.

11.In support of his contentions, learnecl counse I for a l,,Lrcllarrts has relied upon the cases of Akhtar Ali arrd others rr. ,I,ha State

(20O3

SCMR 6), Bagh Ali v. Muhammad Anwar antl a,oflrer {l9t}3 SCMR 1.292), siddlque v. The state (1977 p cr. r-J lio), Muhamrnad Asla,r Khan v' The state (1999 scMR r'r2) at'td, fl{rrham*rad Arrrarn v- The State (2O09 SCMR 23o).

Y,P

-l ('j

12.on the other hand Lcarned A.p.G. with the assis[ance ol'lear.rrerl counsel for the complainant fully supported the inrpngrretl .ir-rclgrnerrt. He submitted that althougl-r there were riome c(-)r!tr':1r11,-11i111111 irr tlrr. evidence of the PW's this was only minor in nar-ur-e; that Alla,lr I:jru<,1; omission from the FIR was not a deliberate irnprovelrrer l r. as r-hc IrtF had to be filed as sool1 as possible ancl therefo'e it was a Lrorra firle omission; that there were' 3 eyes witnesses trt lhc rln.r-rJer.s nrlrr.r

.Y

corroborated each other; that the appellant s trad a tnotivc firr I lrc murder which was a dispute over a plot; thal, lhe.ir-rrJf{lre rrt:l re[r:r.r.irrr: to the recoveries of the firearms were not re levaut a.rs t-trat. [ra<1 ho-<--r r part of a diffcrent case; that Lhere was sufficierrt cilcurnstarrtial evidence to corroborate the eye witness accounts ancl fcrr all ths 6.11rvr. reasons the appeals should be dismissed ancl ttre iurl-nrgned jrrdgurerrl upheld.

13.In support of his contcntions, lean'r.er-l A.1,.(i. r-elir.rl ul)r)n tlr. cases of Muhammad Imran and others w- ,.ftr.o St:*rl.c (il(X),1 I,or.l,l 1697), Arif v. The State and 2 others (pLL) 2006 IresLrawar.tr), Ahrh,l Mateen v. sahib Khan and others (pLD 2006 liulrrerrrc C,rrrr riliri). The state through Muhammad Afzal and othors w. r]Il:rheed lrlb;rl and others (2005 PCT.LJ 1384), Anwar shanrirn errrl errol.her: rr" 'I'hc, State (2010 SCMR 179 1) ancl Arnal Sherin and:rnot:her w. .t.he flt:atc through A.-G., N.W.F,P. (PLD 2OO4 Sulrrenre r-t1rr.r1-t :j'7 t)-

14.I have considered the arguments o[ Iear-necl coLrrrsc[, lrer.rr:;cr,l tl,6 record and the casc law citect by them at thc bar.

15.Turning firstly to the eye witnesses. There are 3 ir'r rrurrrber all r,rl whom claim to be present at the time of the incidenr-. 'l'he ljrst is r,lre complainant PW 1 Muhammed Isma.il, the secor.r,l is t)\,ti 2, .tan Muhammed, and the third is pw 3 Aliah lfllr( althcr.rglr tlrc:re rvir,rre..-rs.s are corroborative o[ each other I clo not lind their eviclerrcc to be cit,her. credible, trust worthy or confidence inspiring for. the lbllou,ing l.easou.:i when such reasons are reacl as a whole es;recialy u,lren aclclecl to llrr. other prosecution and delense cvidence:

(a)That the complainant is the father o[ I:'1,1i i] arrtl it arrd:rs such are interestcd and related parties rvh,r wor't lcl all l.,e expected to corroborate each other.

(b)That an enmity existed bctween Lhe tjeceasecl arrcl l)W I over the hand of Ms Latifa who was Allatr Dirro's ,,vit'e arrcl wa:s "..t

.I

-l(q

allegcdly bcing held by the conrplaiuatrt agairrsl her rvill. 'l'Jral enmity also existed between the appellants and I,lte cor-rtplzr irra t r I over a separate land dispute.

(c)'I'hat PW 3 Allah Bux was a key witness being arr eyc witness and it is not understandable that his rranre was ornil-tecl from the FIR especially when the nam.e of l-be t:rrtrplainar,rts other' a son PW 2 Jan Muharnmed who was also p,resent at tl.re placc of incident was named

(d)That all their evidence in chief appears l-o be f,,.ro similat' arr if it has been tutored and in my view all of thenr urcrc r-lalrtzrgetl during cross examination.

(e)'I'hat PW 1 stated that deceasecl Allalt Dino srrslailterl ortc gunshot idury, that PW 2 statecl thal. two gtttr shot lires wcrc made at deceased Allah Dino hoth of which hil hltr orr l:lr.<-' head and he was fired upon frorn only 4 pac,es a.way (vrztrir:lr could r-rot have missed due to thc close range atrd l.lre lhr;t, thal shot gun cartridges contain nu,-neror-ls pellel,s which slltay oUtward which u,OUld have beep lbrrrrd rlr_rlirrg a rrr,..clir:al examinatiot.r), that PW 3 Allah Bttx slal.es tlta.l r,lct:citr;ed All;rlr Dino received one gun shot injury to ttrc hear.l. As pel: tnedicrri L evidence however Allah Dlno received no grr.n sltot irrjrrr:iers rr.l all. In rny view this is a major contradiction hotween t,hc' ocular and medical evidence which cannot be explairrecl l-ll llr" passage of Lime or otherwise. Even othenvise twq 1:n1 [1-ir.lges vvcrc also allegedly recovered frorn the scene an(l :.ealecl lrorvevet llreJ, turned trp at trial seaied in the szrnre cloth as Ihc gtrn lrelotrgirrg to tl're complainant atrd not thc gr,rtr belt.rt.tgtrtq lo th. acrltlGccl Gulzar which was allegedly userJ. All,lror-rgh trol :r Irat l ol l-[ri:.- case, but exhibited in this case, in a sepal'ate (:asc arisiltg out ()l this case u/s 13 (E) Arms Ordinancc Lhe trial cot.rrt found llrat the prosecution could llot prove il-s s[ory tlral. the police ha,l made recoveries of tl-re firearnrs basecl on b,:trrg [ea,-l to thctu l,y t.

the appcllants Ahmecl snd flssrrol [Jrrk-lrslr. Itr l.rarLicttlat il i:, noted that no entry or statenrclrl is ma<lc irr tlte poli,:r' dairyllog/ roznarlacha that the IO (PW 9 Dalo l{lrarr) is tahirrg thc appcllants out of the police statiott itr otrlet lo recrlrret l.ltr' firearms from a particular spot. It thet'eforc <--attttt- [ be rrller.l or tl that the firearms \,ere foistecl / pla n tccl {rlr tlre a;lJ.'ellartls l'

especially as the complainants fireamr vvas a lle gecll-y recr;rrere tl from a hedge close to where the complainanl. rvAS residing:- (0 There is no independent corroboratiort r-rl P1i./ I ,il, atrd .i about the plot dispute motive. Significantly llssar Megtlwat' rvlto previously owned the plot who could have explairrccl the positiorr was notexamined. The storyof PW's 1,2-) atrtl ll c;learing l.ltr: s[.'ol .l, leaving piles of material at the place crI itrci,lent also wetrL unnoticed by both the original IO PW 11 Mohaturlrecl E]achal arrrl later IO PW 9 Dato Khan. It is not eve.tr clear li'orrr |,ht: evirlerr,-t: whether the incident took place behitrd a hedgecl plot rvitlr a single passageway or on a veranda by the corrtplail tat tt's hottse as there are contradictory statements (i1r this poirrt ft'otrr numerous PW's.

(g)unnatural conduct/actions which clo not seenr to appcat to reason are also present on tlec pa-t't of I'lli I, '.1. ntrr| :-1. li,,i example, if Allah Dino (who was Lhe brothel crf tlre cotnplailtarrt) had been injured why did the complaiuant cu- orte o[ fris scrlrs nt-rt irnmediately take him to hospital for treatmer.rI rvlrir--lr cottlcl Iravo saved his life. Instead of taking such action tlre cotnplaitta.nt lilsl of all went to the house of PW 5 Muharnmecl Zarrrarr whr-r liverl I ancl a half I(M's from him for rro c>iPlairrcrl or' Pl4rrsilrle lcas(,n. ll he was able to be dropped at Mr.Zaman's houtsc ltreu he r:ortlrl easily have arranged to be dropped at a hospital rvith t.he injrrrr.:, I Allah Dino (who was his brother).'Ihe cornplainatrl. Llren [rro,.:ce,:lr; to register the FIR before finally returning to ttre plac:e of incictcnt when after the police arrive the iujtu'ecl Alla.h Dino is fitrally and belatedly taken alive to civil hospital Matli. At lhe Matli <:i,ril hospital he is sent for specia.liz-ecl Ltea[nrerrl t,'' Ilvr-.lelalurrI hospital rvhere he expired on account of his rrliurics. Suclr conduct, in my view, by the complainanl- is (i(),Itplel-el.y rrot understandable and does not appeal to rea.sr:n. I-ikewise his lu,o sous PW 1 Jan Muhammed and IrlV 2 Allah l:ir-rx also le{l l.hcir i. seriously injured uncle (Allah Dino) to lay unatt-ended for hor-rrs rather than attempt to take hirn Lo bospital. Agairr l.hiri cloes trol appeal to reasoll. Surely the actiot-r o[ auy t'easLrrr a I l.-' r brother/relative rvould have Lreen to try and :iave l-lrir-t brother/relatives life rather than to wattder oft [o :::..:i(] Muhammed Zaman ancl ttren file an FIll before tctur-rring rvil:lr the poiice in order to attend to thc iqirrled hrothcr? Atr eatly

V'7

.lq6

rntervention may have lead to savirrg tlre <;.rnlrlairrarr t's lrr.ottrcr,s life (Allah Ditto)

(h)another unnatural concluct which irr nry vierv r,loes rrcrl appeal to reason is that when the deceased were attacl<ed by the appellants why did not PW 1,2 or 3 rnove I,o get thc strot gurr which the complainant l-rad brought with lritrr irr order to protect 1 themselves. Instead they let appellant Ahrrrer,l seize it aftel- the attack started. If the dispute was ovel ttre pkrl, rvh1, clid rroi: I,he appellants kill PW 7,2 and 3 as welli'T'hey lra.<l I.inre to t.lo so Why would they leave eye witnesses alive to laler irrrplicatc them? Interestingly PW 1, 2 and 3 all lrrrcrv that ttre complainants shot gun had B cartridges witlr it'. Why <lid Rasool Bukhsh fire Gulzar's gun? Gulzar shoulcl have becrr carrry,ing triri own gun. None of the above in my view tencl.s lt' r'ilrg l_l'Lle or appeal to reason. As was recentll, held by the FIorr'hle ,'lr-rprerne Court in the case of Muhammad Asif v" The Sl:al:e (r-l(l l'l Ii ( l IVI R 486) which found as under in respect o[ such incidents at Para's 7 and 1O.

"Para7.........'lhis lady rvas agr-:rl alrtrtrl lr()/{r I 1r';r:-r. wirile her husband was 70 1,ears of agc art<l urtretr lhe lu,r' eye-witne sses not producecl at l.lre tr iill rratrrely Illil.llr:rr ar-rd Tajarnmal, were close Il-ie r.rrls o{ llrc ,lcr:c;r.:c,.1 Ilr. rr l. why sl-re being an agecl laclv a-ttd het'll.tsbi.rtr,l. qrl11r r,r,;r:,;ri the advanced age of his lil'c iollowecl tlrerrr. ll tlrey r.r,err- apprehending something al-lnorrnal, t.lrey rvould 1.i,,,^ conveuiently told the above l.wr, [r'icncls ol tlrc (ler.-r';rsr'rI that beilrg late darl< night Liure, it wzts rrot arlvi:;:r.l,rl.r t,r tal<e the deccased oul-side. No c:onvinciug *rnd lrlarrsibl,' reason has heen advanced rs (.o urhy tlre y lrrrl lr followed the deceased and his two f,i:icnds rrrrtl rryha.t was the object behind it" 'flre corr.duct of botb thesc alleged eye-witnesses run.s r:orttt{:er to rtorfiyrl lrf,rtnnlr behaviour and habit in the giwen cir:t:rtnr sl:a tqc<:s ;rrrrl ira the absence of plausible explanation, tto prrrrlent urinrl would believe such fantastic story whielt appenrs to lrr-. the hand-Art of the local policc bccarts,e irr *r rriglrl occurrence of this nature, remainirrg rrn-witttesse rl. th<r police imprudently indulges in srrclr liltn t:a<r(.i<:s i.<r mislead the court of law antl .irrsticc" (lrol<[ lrrlclerL)

I <)

10.We fail to understand that in the presenc<-. of l.h<r two close friends accornpariying the tlccetrsed arrrl parents, how such tragerlv with a son r:orrlrl haplrcr, without any irrtervention on l.heir llert l.o c()rlrc I (i rescue of the deceased wherr thtly ur'et:e llol- lii r- aurnv ;rri shown in the site plan." (br,rld ar.lclrtcl) ,r.,,-

--l {-j

(i)According to PW 3 Allah Btrx tlre pr-rlic c rer:ovcr'611 21 hatchet from the wardat. However acr:o1li1f'. to l'\l/ l), l,:rl<n,lirro appellant Gulzar produced a bloody l.ratchel, irr [.lrc Lrleserrce .r[ the police which was recovered. ISearirrg irr minc[ that appell:rnt Gulzar had already left the crime scelrc clocs il ,t[)l)eal to leasou that after comrnitting a cold bloodied nrr-rr(lcl lre woukl lrceq,,,, bloodied hatchet being one of lfte rrrr-rr clcl u/ea[)onr; itr lris possession and surrerlder it to tlre policc. Trr rrrjr viqs,;1pls.irr llrr:: action does not appeal to reason. Agair-r as was lrelr1 ir r I he ca sc of Muhammad Asif (Supra) atPara 17

"17. It is, normal practice ancl con(lucl ol r-:rrllrr.its llr;rl when they select night time for cornnrissirrr r oI sr.rr;h r:r'inre , their first anxiety is Lo cancel their irJentity so Lhal thc.lr may go scot-free unidentified anc[ irr l.h;rl r-:,rr,tlsc llrey I,rv their level best to conceal or rlcstrol, ea.'lr l,ir',rr-- ol .viclerrr-c incrirninating irr naturs lvlriclr, urig-lrl. lr.' rtirr-rl rrp-airr:t them in the luture thus, hur:nan fa.,:rtlty rrf ptrr,,lclrcc r;r,orll,l not accept the present stor.y ratlrer-, erfter r--rlnr rrr il-t ing crirrrr. with the dagger, the appellarrI r:oulr-l thrrrw il. au,iiy anywl-lere in any field, water cir.lrals, well crl ottr.er pl:r,. alld no circutnstances wollld l1s1rr-'r;hoserr lo l)tc.rclve il in his own shop if believed sc) beoar-rse [l ral rnrns srrsr:elr{ilrlr to recovery by the police."

! 16. Turning to the other evidence

17.PW 4 Dr. Ghazi who was the Dr who carrietl ollt Lhc p().:l mortem on dece ased Waroo. Her rne clir:al evicle rt(-e {lees n(.)t support/match the injuries allegec{ly inflictect on \^/alo() l_r.y llr,_- appellant's as per StatemenLs of PW 7, 2 a.n<1 ii wJro lverr: the r..-yc witne sses. There also appears to be an overwr-iting irr thr.- tirrrc trf I I rr post mortem report of Warro changing ttrr: sl.a.r-1. tirrrr: llr.rrr l().1',Oprrr to 3.3O pm which would tie in with Dr. Ghazi's staternerrt tltat Warr',.r's death might have occurred between t3-9 prn whictr r,vor-rld lra,ve ltrrl. tlrt: time of iucidcnt as narrated by the colnplainanl jtr rlotrLrt.

18.Nor does Dr. Ghazi's initial cxa.rlrirral,iorr nI Allalr Dir.rcr sllpport/match the injuries allegedly iltlir:tcrJ r:rrr Allalr []ino l-rtz tlre appellant's as per Stalements oI PW 1, 2 arrd 3 rvho rvel'n llrc ,:i,. witnesses. No where on Allah Diiro':; body are gun shot- woulrcls l.or,rrrrl

19.PW 1() Dr. Irshad did the final post mortern orr r,le<:<lased Allah Dino lvhich again does not suppor-t/ rnatcl r lhe irrjtrries allegecl[-r, inflicted on Allah Dino b-y the appellant's as pel Sltatelrrcrrl.:r r:r[ l]'W l. ,l

1{z and 3 who were thc eye rvitnesscs. No rvtrere rrrr A.lla]r ljirrrt's bo<_[y arc gun shot wounds found.

20.PW 5 Mohamed Zamin. lje is a trear.say urjfl 163.. rxrlro corroborated the complainant's story about the ir-rcirierrt. I-lovvever- there is no rcason why the complainarrt went ancl irrrrnecliately tc,lr-l him the story rather than seek rnedical assislarrr:e lirr lris br-ottrer.. There is also no logical reason why he came to llre r,var-clat.

21.All the other PW's i1 my view \^/c,r. .la.rrr:rp-1c,1 irr ( r,r:t:r examination and their evidence is ridctlecl u,itl.r itrcorrsisl-encics arrrl contradictions with other PW's. PW B Mushir Lakha.clirlo, r.vho vyas rnashir, has little i[any credibility as he himsclf is ir.rvolve<_l in r:r.irrrirral cases as he adrnitted during his cross exarnlratiorr. PW 'z [(arirtr J:tr ur'r sketch of the vardat is of little assistance as it was car ried (rlr[ (rver .l years after the incident on the pointation of the corn pla ir-rarr {..

22.Despite others being present aL t,tre plar:c ol r,var.rJat ro independent Mushir was associated throughout the itrvestigation. 'lhe lathi and hatchet were sent for chemical exarnination a.lter a clelav .r'1, months which delay has not been explainecl.

23.In their 342 statements when the appellar-rts rryer-e asl<ed i[ thev had to say anylJ'ring else all adoptecl tl-re sl.at-clrent. ()f al)lrellarrt. Ahrrrr-rt which reads as under:

"l arn inuocent. I, rny son Rasool Iiukhslr arrd rny daughter.'s son Gulzar Ali have got enmit.y with ;rresant conrplailaui and his witnesses Jan Muhamrnacl and Allah llrrktlsh. r.oal sons of complainant. Mashir l,akh.arlino l[ot.karr i is irrirrrir:a.I with us over lands and the etections. 'l'lrr.. lirrrrl wlrr:r-c iv<. reside and ir-r surrottnding rvas giverr l.ry (iovr_:rLrrrrerrt trr N/tr.. Jarnshed Marker, the ther-r Artrba ssa r,lr,rr of J-a [<.isl.a l r. l llr rrra ltr.r. was contestecl by co-villagels i,trt,Jet rny srrpelr,isiorr, r I I irr r:r r. .,, r I I

the allotrncnt ol Mr. Jamshecl Marl<er- lvas r;irrrcetler I lr_y l lrc I ti;ilr Court of Sindh. I produce certificcl trtrc t--op1r ol ,trrrlg.urcnl ;r:r Dx.59/8. Thereafter I helcl pre r;ri corrlcr.cn,.:c wlrir:lr \.va:: published in the Nev;spapels claill, "J,\541?A'1"'. I Irr.orJr-rc-c tlrr: ctttting as trx.59/C. Complainant has got, cnru.it:y rvith rrre :rrr<t co-accused over the lands" He iutenrls to tlispo".sos* rrs fi.our t the lands, Mashir Lakhadino Notk:rui is well lruorrrrr cr-iruirrcll. He was arrestecl by Badin policc alorg wit:h. :obh<--rl motorcycle. Such nc!vs wcr-c lrr,rl.rli:;lrccl irr rlnill, ''l(A\iVll l" t producc it as Ex.59/lJ so also l..loclrrc:c 111e,,laily "lbr.iri''. I al:.,, prociucc thc Lnre copli oI l.i-rc FIli loclgecl against l.alclrirr-lirrr, :,:, ICx.59/lI. He is fast friend of cornplaiuan{.. Courplainaut. arr<l his sons had a fight with deceased Waroo arrrl .Allahrlirro ow..rr. thc hands of Mst. Latifarr wife of rlaceased Atlahrlirro ,,s Ismail did not allow deceased Alla.hrlino to {::rke rrwnw hio; wife and Allahdino and Waroo srrstaine<l i.rrjrrries ai: ttre fia.rrrt

It Y

of complainant and his sons at thc ltorrse .ilt pr'r:scur,-c of D.Ws. Muhammad Hashim, Manoo arrd I{l ralig tli.rr o. the sorrs- in-law of complainant Isrnail, lilaroo tlied orr rllre s;rol alrrl Allahdino died irr the llospital^ At th:rt ti re, I Nr':1s irt rl{)!;{lir{) of our village where D\[s Qaclir Bul<hsh lr11{ ffil.lik<lirto rl'or..' also present. The said widow of cleceased Allnl,rtlirro Msl:^ Latifan is still confined by cornplairtarrt im his ltorrse arrrt d have come to know that complairrarrt lras lrerforrnorl rrilurlr with Mst, Latifan. Police Inspector: t':r!prrr- is firsl. fti.ertrl o[ complainant. They have involvetl rrrq f:rls<-'ly irr this {r;lFc'- i am innocent. (bolcl adcled)

24.Thus, as can l:e seen from the 61bsr7s $.i342 slal.ctttenls llrctc ur:r.:r enmity betweeu the appellants ancl PW 1,2, ll ar.ril otttct-uritttcssr:i over land. Furthermore, it would appear that the defetrse pttt rlp l.rt' tlee appellants was that there was ill will betrveerr {,lre r:ornplainatrt attrl his sous (PWl,2 and 3) with the deceased Allatr l)irro atttl vt/at'r'r-r r.rr;et' the complainant confining Allah Dino's rvife to lhc Lrortse wtrich lea<.I lrr a fight between PW t, 2 and 3 ar-rd ttre deceased rvlri<.-h leacl to tht: death of the deceased.

25.It is observed that this line of defense rvas corrsistently lrut tt-r all the relevant PW's and was.supported by all lhe DW's r;vlto all stal.ccl that there was no plot dispute and 2 of tl-re L-rW's (D\ i I l{haliqr,re [)irr. and DW 3 Manoo) had beer-r eye witnesses lo t[re r;or nlrla.itt:r tt I rnurdering Waroo and injuring Allah Dirro at lris lror.rse irr llre l)r-c-qct.r'(-' ! of his sons (PW l and 2) over Lhis nraril.al rJisptr(c. Itr (:r():j.r examinatiou it was only suggested to these 2 DW's t-l-rat l-hey vrrer'" deposing falsely. No suggestioll was put to theu therl- l.ltete was rro marital dispute between the complainant ancl l-lre rlecea-sed ot lh:rl they did not witness the murder of Warrro aod llrc itr.ir-try to Allah []irro by the complainant. It is also interesting that the r.:ornplain&flt lras nrrur married Allah Dino's lvife u,ho the clispute rvas alleger]ly {,v.t.

26.I agree with thc well settled legal proposition thal. an eye witrtcss should not be disbelieved simply because he is relaterl t-o tlre cleceaserl, but in this case enmity has come on recorrJ l:etrreelr the appellat l:.r r and the complainant side. Like wise as a rule trtirtot'r:otrl.t.atficl,iolrG atc ,l to be ignored but in this case I find the contradictions to be o[ a glaring and tnajor natlr.re: especially irt rcsl-rer:t crl t.lrc <11:Lc!-,lp,rtt,:',, between l.he ocular evideltce of all 3 PW cyc r,r'itnesses ll'rat Allatr I)irr,, was shot in the head when in l-act tl're rnedical eviclettce 5fterv:r conclusively that he was not shot aL all. The trtot.ive as a,llegec'|. by tlrr:: complainant i.e. dispute over a plot also seems lo be weali l-taserl ,rlt the evideuce especially as Essar Maghwar the lblmer owtler of the lrlol

Y''

,-,F-

-_1t,..

was not examine cl who lived close bv arrrl I)W's lravr- rl,'rticcl lh.nt llterc was any dispute over that particular plr.tt-. 'l'he delerrs..: ltas alscr pr,ll. lll.l at1 alternative motive for the murder of War-r''o ;rrtrl /\llalr l)irrr-' tratttcll' there was a marital dispute betrveen Allatr I)irro arrr.l tlre colrtpla,it ta rr l over Ms Latifia which has been corroborated L-,.y 3 D\tr/'s u'hich alsrt may explain why the complainant left Allah L)irro withcrr:t ettsttrirrg tl_rat he received immecliate medical asslstaoce lbr lri: scr.ior,rs irr.jr rli,l:. t'

27.Witl-r regarcl to eye witnesscs and their r-lq5r:r-i;iliorr rrl'llre [1r1.1r-:: r,l injUrieS arfd I'rOW thOSe inji;rie S r,vCre cat tsctl ()ll ;r.rlrtrtttl .l :rlt,:lt itr acCUracieS doubt was placed On the prosccutiorr casc itr llte casr,- r-r[ Siddique V State (1997 PCt".LI 30) at Para 6 in l-hc ltrllowitrg tet'tns:

"lt rnea.ns tlrat these vt'ittte sses lvere rJttil.c al-lctrl-ivc ft-otrt llrc beginning. Their statements dircctly 'lollle irr cor t[licl witlr l lrc medical evidencc according to which []ttcc ittt;isetl rvolttl1lai r;rrcl'c caused to tl-re deceased by the lralt:hcL. IrI <::::'e all l.lrcse witnesSes were so CIOSe to the alrpclla.rrt arrrl llrr- rl,'r:ra:;erl llrnl they had hcard all what transpircrl lrcl-r,vecrt llr.rrt irrrrl il \r,1rrr within their sight that the hatcJrel l;lorvs rvr:rr: glivcrr l-'y Ilrer appellant to tl-re deceased then thel' u'oulcl be t{etrr'rirrell/ expe(rlc'l to be accurate about the uumber 1tf tl'rc irrir tt ics :rlsr'' I tr-tl- tltal i:r llot so. The medical evidence gives; alr altogelltr:r' r-li['[t:rertt 1'r'l:liott of injUries, therefore in our estirnaliotr ll1c 1l:rletrrcttl:i .'f tltese eye-witnesses are not free frotn dot-tlrt Irr llr'' 1" l'l?' :rlrro llt' cotlplainant l-ras stated that it. r,rras rvil:lrirr lris ii;1h1. atl(l ;rl:r0 witl-riI tl-re sight of Ir.Ws. Lalrlretrrr, ;ttrrl [\rlilltr' ,ltrtreio lltr'll lrir hatchet blows were given to tllc ,.lct'cascrl 'ttt lrct lt:rt:l< r'r'ir'l r sharp sidc ol hatcl-rct. Tl-rcse witt'tcssc:: tr.te rltrilc r;ct taitt alrrtrrl thc number of injuries but the nutnbet'c,[ ini,.,tric:r 1-;ivett lr.y llrr-'r1t is wrong. Wc are not' therefore inclinecl to .r(.1()(-rl )l l.l te tcsl-it tror r.i' of these cyc-witucsses. This qttestiotr rvas taiscrl lre{orc llre lrr"tl Cottrt al-rd while clcalirrg with this lroirrl tl re lea|trctl II Arlrlitiorr:rl Sessiorrs Judge had given a ge tre l'al cxltlatr:tlior.r s;rvirrg- llral "where the peoplc observe, uttcler r[t c3:r rrl ctrtttliotts' ltlr occurrence from a short space, frorrt cli{lcr<,'tll ,iflgles, rvil.}r different tctnl>eratnetrts, capacitJr to ollsct'r'ctl' irtlr'lligettt:e att'l memory discrellancies arc botttr<l t-(' 'rc<.'ttt " \A/' ;'rrc tttt;rlllc i agree with this observatiou llecar-tsr.l u/l lAlrrv('I (lr. l''trtl,r:trttttrttl:: or emotions the witr1esses rnighl- be lravir-rg irtrtl wttitl-crre t llro angles by which they were seeitrg tttc cotlttrrissiotr of oflett':c might have been, it is not possible that: nll r.rf thcru ruorrkl make similar mistake and that too <>f, a vcry iur;rorl:anl. nature." (bolcl added) i.c of a firca r.-rrt ipirtr-v irr lltirr r.';tsr.

28.It is a well settled principle of r:rirnirral larv fl-rzrl it is lcrr llrc prosccution to prove its case against the accuscrl lrcyort<-l 6 5h2[lsr1r 1r[ a doubt and if there is any doubt in the prosecLltiorr'ts case the bene[i(: of such doubt, as set out in the case o[ 'fari<; l'ervez w- X'lre Stato (1995 SCMR 1345) must go to the appellarlt as of'right as r)pposed trr concession. However in considering l-hirr .rs[)ecl ol llte c;ase I anr alscr

V.

il

r 6l guided by the case o[ Faheem Ahmed Farooqui V State l']o()lt :i('N/ll. 1572) where itwas held as under at. P. 1576 al. L'ara lr "lt needs no reiteratiou that for Lhe f)lJl'lxrr:;e lrl p]r'itrt1 lrrttr'ltl of doubt to an accused person, more lllarl oue itrlir tttil'i' i3 rirrt required, a single infirmity creating ;qa5e111hle doub{: irr the mind of a reasonable antl prrrdcnt nrirtrl reg:rrding l.lre truth of the charge makes the u.rhole q354 {orrlttfirl" Mc-rr'lt' bccause thc burdcn is on the accttsct [r1 1t1 r-rrrq lri:r itttttt(:elttt c 'r it clocs not absolve the prosecutiotl fr-oltr il:' rlrrll' lr' Pt.rv.. il:' CaSe against thc accttsed beyoncl atry slrar-|,.,,r' ,rl rl,rrtlrt."(lrolrl added)

29.In the recent supremc court case o[ [Iashim. Qaslnr v stat<t (Criminal Appeals No.115 and 116 of 2Ol3) datetl I2il'April oolT the Hon'ble supreme Court in respect of tfte fucrretil rrf dor r trt tre lrJ as under atPara2O'.

"Even a single doubt, if found rcasonablc, rvt'tt lr.l ctrtitlc llrc accused pe rson to acquittal and not a cotrbitt:'rli' rtr ol- :lcvet-lt I doubl s is [r edrock princip le o[ jusl-ice . llel'clcrr(]c lrur\r l't' ttr:r'l'' to the case of Riaz Masih Crz) IVI ithoo v, 'l'he Stat.<-' (Nr,R l99ti Crl. 6941."

30.ln this case for thc reasons disctrssed al]orze 1-,r'itrratily bcirrg llrr- non confidence inspiring evidence of the eye ruitttrrr;:resr l'\/V 1,2 arrrl :t which is contrary to normal usqal behavigttr atr<l rlqes trtrl. alrlreal l-t' reason aS mentioned earlier and the rnaiot cottl.t arlir':tiolt itt llt'itr eviclence vis a vis the shooting of Allah llino and llre trrerlical evidetr<:r. which conclusively shows that AIIah Diso rct:eivecl no lrullel. wotttrd' enmity between the parties, ttre possibility o[ an r.ll.ernalive rttotive, llrc lack of reliability and trustworthiless of the p6ltt:e rn,ittrcsses att'l Mushirs and the prosecution evidence as a u'ltole wlrir.:lt aplreals t() be riddled with contradictiols, evell the chernical l-epo;t \/as delayecl LrY over 5 months rryhich went completell' trrte;rplaitrecl at'l t'ltc allerierl sealed empties were found with the gun they clid rrol rlttttte ll:r:ltt t.iecl ilr onc parcel I am of the view that u,hen thc evitle rrt'e is l.carl .r ttr I considered in totality there would be a rcasotr a.ble rjor.tbl ir r ,l reasonable and pruderlt perSOn'S mincl thal tl're a1r1:r'll:rttts rvcrr.' nl\l ). guilty of the offenses for which they havc [6q11 rlrtrvigl,ecl [y lhe l1t:.rl court.

31.'l'hus, for the re asolls disct-rsse ct abt.rve I tir rcl l-hal tlrc prosecution has failecl to prove its case beyorrct a reasr-'rtable doubt against thc appellants ancl that tl-re appellarrts are ertl-itled to l.l-te y-J\

benefit of the doubt and as such set asicie l-he ittrPr-rgnerl ;r'ttlgttretrl attrl up hold the appeals of both apPeliants Grtlz'art' ztn'l fi:tr<)ol I lrrlilrrlr g2. As such the appellants Gulzar atrcl llasriol ["trlclr:rlr atr] ltctt]l'] acquitted in the above case.

Hyderabad: I

Dated: 2(t-O4-2O17

I,

li